I like to think that it wasn't near his place of residence (though concede I may be wrong). I also like the blitz-style attack, but I'm not so sure. Nichols known movements place her further West of the crime scene. It's also clear that she touted for business along Whitechapel road. I get the impression that her plan was to repeatedly wander East along Whitechapel and then back again, only moving off Whitechapel once she was at Osborn Street. I think she met the Ripper whilst she was as far East as she was moving, and they walked to Buck's Row. Notice that the murder took place in front of the gates and not a house. I think that they walked to that point, and the Ripper would have looked behind him towards White's Row, looked in front of him towards Brady street, have seen nobody, so then decided to kill her. He then took off back towards White's Row, escaping down the street they probably came up (Court), at which point Cross was entering Buck's Row.

The last known sighting of Nichols (as far as I'm aware) was at 2:30am on Whitechapel Road, opposite the church and on the corner of Osborne Street. Upon being asked by Jane Oran to go back with her to 18 Thrawl Street, Nichols refused and wanted to go to a place on Flower & Dean Street where men and women were allowed to sleep. Could she have met someone and intended to take him there and - the question for someone with more knowledge of the geography of the area than I - would Buck's Row have been a logical route from where she was seen towards Flower & Dean Street?

The last known sighting of Nichols (as far as I'm aware) was at 2:30am on Whitechapel Road, opposite the church and on the corner of Osborne Street. Upon being asked by Jane Oran to go back with her to 18 Thrawl Street, Nichols refused and wanted to go to a place on Flower & Dean Street where men and women were allowed to sleep. Could she have met someone and intended to take him there and - the question for someone with more knowledge of the geography of the area than I - would Buck's Row have been a logical route from where she was seen towards Flower & Dean Street?

Not really. Both Thrawl St and Flower & Dean St are most directly reached by heading north(ish) up Osborn St, whereas Buck's Row is half a mile away along Witechapel Road. There's plenty of pubs in the area though, so if she was looking for company she could easily have wandered that far and been on her way back with a prospective bed-fellow, but it's definitely not a direct route from where she was last sighted.

A point which seems to have been either missed or discounted is contained in the Official Police Report by Abberline and Swanson dated 19th September 1888:

“Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented*by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose.”

I have found nothing to support this so far; however it could tie in with Paul's comments on the danger of the street, and Mrs Greens somewhat over the top insistence that there were no disorderly houses in the street, and women were not seen about. This of course despite a juror saying there were several such establishments in Thomas Street.

A point which seems to have been either missed or discounted is contained in the Official Police Report by Abberline and Swanson dated 19th September 1888:

“Bucks Row is a narrow quiet thoroughfare frequented*by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose.”

I have found nothing to support this so far; however it could tie in with Paul's comments on the danger of the street, and Mrs Greens somewhat over the top insistence that there were no disorderly houses in the street, and women were not seen about. This of course despite a juror saying there were several such establishments in Thomas Street.

Just a possibility.

Steve

Hi Steve,

It is hardly a very qualified hypothesis that the police knew which streets were frequented by prostitutes.

But Jack the Ripper did not target "prostitutes" as a priority. If they were prostitutes, that was just something which was a posiibility and sometimes a fact for these women who were walking the streets at night.

One could make a list of characteristics for the type of women he was looking for. And being a prostitute was not their most prominent feature.

It is hardly a very qualified hypothesis that the police knew which streets were frequented by prostitutes.

But Jack the Ripper did not target "prostitutes" as a priority. If they were prostitutes, that was just something which was a posiibility and sometimes a fact for these women who were walking the streets at night.

One could make a list of characteristics for the type of women he was looking for. And being a prostitute was not their most prominent feature.

Pierre

I agree Pierre,

It is just a possible reason why Nichols was in Bucks Row. The Question in the thread.
According to that report the POLICE believed it was a place where prostitutes went. That does not mean they are correct of course, only that they believed it to be so.
It seems that night at least Nichols was working, and a reason why she may have ended up in Bucks Row.

One has to say that the tendency shown by Mrs Green, which basically amounts to her saying this is a nice street, no women working round here, motive to make the area appear better, can be seen as being just a tad over the top.

Given the comment in the report, it cannot be ruled out that she took someone there has it was a placed used for such activity. However it's not something I would spend too much time debating.

On your final point, who knows? You obviously think you do, I await details patiently.

Maybe she was going to or from nearby Whitechapel station trying to pick a client up, or to find somewhere within the building to sleep for the night. Could you enter/exit the station from nearby Winthrop St ?

It is just a possible reason why Nichols was in Bucks Row. The Question in the thread.
According to that report the POLICE believed it was a place where prostitutes went. That does not mean they are correct of course, only that they believed it to be so.

And this means the area was an area where there would be an expectancy of finding that specific type of woman.

And that means that the area was important for the killer.

Quote:

It seems that night at least Nichols was working, and a reason why she may have ended up in Bucks Row.

And whatever she was doing there, in that particular street, she was out in the streets at night in Whitechapel.

Quote:

One has to say that the tendency shown by Mrs Green, which basically amounts to her saying this is a nice street, no women working round here, motive to make the area appear better, can be seen as being just a tad over the top.

That is a very good source critical analysis. You point to the tendency and explain it with the motive. In this case you think as an historian.

Quote:

Given the comment in the report, it cannot be ruled out that she took someone there has it was a placed used for such activity. However it's not something I would spend too much time debating.

Yes, and I agree with you, it is not something to spend time on debating. It is irrelevant what she did. The relevant question is what type of woman she was. The killer only had to see her to understand that.

Quote:

On your final point, who knows? You obviously think you do, I await details patiently.

Steve

Yes, but it is easy to see what the killer saw. You only have to look at pictures of that type of woman from the time period, or read about them in the newspapers from the time, and you will see what he saw.

This type of woman was not everywhere and not as frequent anywhere as in Whitechapel. In Whitechapel there was a high chance of finding this type of woman. It was actually guaranteed.

And this means the area was an area where there would be an expectancy of finding that specific type of woman.

And that means that the area was important for the killer.

And whatever she was doing there, in that particular street, she was out in the streets at night in Whitechapel.

That is a very good source critical analysis. You point to the tendency and explain it with the motive. In this case you think as an historian.

Yes, and I agree with you, it is not something to spend time on debating. It is irrelevant what she did. The relevant question is what type of woman she was. The killer only had to see her to understand that.

Yes, but it is easy to see what the killer saw. You only have to look at pictures of that type of woman from the time period, or read about them in the newspapers from the time, and you will see what he saw.

This type of woman was not everywhere and not as frequent anywhere as in Whitechapel. In Whitechapel there was a high chance of finding this type of woman. It was actually guaranteed.

Pierre

Straying off topic, that does not tell us why he sought this type of women?
If he sought a particular type of women, what was the significance of this type? What was his motive?